AG, governor pressed for answers on MCAD amicus withdrawal

In the wake of a last-minute withdrawal of an amicus brief filed by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the NAACP and Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers are asking the governor and attorney general for answers.

In an open letter to Gov. Deval L. Patrick and Attorney General Martha Coakley, the NAACP and MAMLEO write that they are disturbed by what they view as inappropriate judicial interference.

“Within legal circles, it is believed that the Office of the Governor and/or the Office of the Attorney General pressured the MCAD to withdraw its brief,” they write. “If either the Office of the Governor or the Office of the Attorney General pressured the MCAD to withdraw its brief, you owe it to the general public and to all police officers who have been discriminated against to be forthright and honest enough to publicly state whatever role, if any, you may have played in causing the MCAD to withdraw its brief.”

Boston attorney Harold L. Lichten represents a group of minority police officers seeking promotions in a number of cities and towns across Massachusetts.

The SJC is being asked to decide whether the plaintiffs have the right to file suit against the state on the grounds that Massachusetts officials developed and administered what they allege is a discriminatory promotional exam.

On the Friday before his client’s court date, Lichten learned that the MCAD, without explanation, had moved to withdraw its brief.

The brief, written by Catherine C. Ziehl, embraced Lichten’s position.

Juan M. Cofield, president of the New England Area Conference of the NAACP, said his organization has asked the AG and governor to provide answers but has not received a response.

“The NAACP felt that the AG and the [Patrick] administration have a responsibility under their authority to see that the civil service exam is fair and unbiased,” he said. “If there was pressure put on the MCAD to withdraw the brief, then that is judicial interference. If a private individual did that, it would be equal to obstruction of justice.”

Spokesmen for Patrick and Coakley were not immediately available for comment.